Another baby step on the road to unity? Or just a friendly gesture from His All-Holiness?

Thoughts?

I thought that some Orthodox posters here have questioned the effectiveness (validity) of Catholic baptism and other Catholic Sacraments. Supposedly Catholic Sacraments, including baptism, are at least doubtful, and Catholics are at least heterodox, if not outright heretics and even one poster says that Catholics are not Christians. However, from his address and statement of March 20, 2013http://www.patriarchate.org/documents/2013popefrancisaddressit does not sound to me like His All Holiness, the EP of Constantinople, considers the Pope to be an unbaptised heretic. In fact he embraces and kisses the Pope and calls him: " Your beloved and esteemed Holiness".

Stanley, your general point is correct. There is widespread theological illiteracy, particularly online; please don't look to the Internet to learn Orthodox theology or practice. The chief evidence for your point is not the honorifics used in events such as these -- although the Ecumenical Patriarch does have a real affection for the Latins...and, rightly so, as there has been a strong recovery of patristic theology in the last several generations. At any rate, don't look to honorifics but much more official sources. You will find a very different understanding of the baptism of Roman Catholics, for example, in the officially endorsed canon law manuals used in the Church of Russia, Greece, Serbia, Romania, et al. than what you might read here or on other sites. There are still real theological and pastoral problems that produce real Christian divisions, but it's not at all like what one would think reading the popularized polemics of netodoxy.

Logged

But for I am a man not textueel I wol noght telle of textes neuer a deel. (Chaucer, The Manciple's Tale, 1.131)

EP Bartholomew is patriarch of Constantinople, not Jerusalem. Therefor he has no authority to invite anyone to Palestine.

IIRC EP Athenagoras wanted to have the "reconciliation" in Palestine with Pope Paul VI of Rome, but Patriarch Benedict of Jerusalem would have none of it, and so it had to be done in the Phanar.

The Patriarchal web site says "His All-Holiness met in private with Pope Francis on Wednesday, March 20, 2013, where he invited the Pope to commemorate and celebrate the 50th anniversary of the restoration of relations between the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches, which occurred in Jerusalem between Patriarch Athenagoras and Pope Paul VI."

Good question! I have always found the Patriarch's formal statements to be full of archaic and anachronistic phrasings which probably makes translation difficult and often leading to absurd paraphrasing in the west or by those with their own agenda. He could use a new ghostwriter!

The problem with what you are saying is that Constantinople has been trying to redefine what her position is. I think that Isa can shed more light into this, but my impression is that Moscow has pushed back hard against Constantinople's attempts to make herself not just the First among Equals but the head of all Orthodox. Ergo, I think that HOH was merely repeating current policy and not using "archaic and anachronistic phrasing."

EP Bartholomew is patriarch of Constantinople, not Jerusalem. Therefor he has no authority to invite anyone to Palestine.

IIRC EP Athenagoras wanted to have the "reconciliation" in Palestine with Pope Paul VI of Rome, but Patriarch Benedict of Jerusalem would have none of it, and so it had to be done in the Phanar.

The Patriarchal web site says "His All-Holiness met in private with Pope Francis on Wednesday, March 20, 2013, where he invited the Pope to commemorate and celebrate the 50th anniversary of the restoration of relations between the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches, which occurred in Jerusalem between Patriarch Athenagoras and Pope Paul VI."

Good question! I have always found the Patriarch's formal statements to be full of archaic and anachronistic phrasings which probably makes translation difficult and often leading to absurd paraphrasing in the west or by those with their own agenda. He could use a new ghostwriter!

The problem with what you are saying is that Constantinople has been trying to redefine what her position is. I think that Isa can shed more light into this, but my impression is that Moscow has pushed back hard against Constantinople's attempts to make herself not just the First among Equals but the head of all Orthodox. Ergo, I think that HOH was merely repeating current policy and not using "archaic and anachronistic phrasing."

I haven't really ever seen this, at least from the contemporary Patriarchate. Also, it's impossible for them to do so. Rome was bolstered by the fact that it ruled the entirety of Western Europe and the Pope became the secular leader of parts of Western Europe as well. The Patriarchate of Constantinople's territory is much smaller now, and he isn't really a secular leader now.

EP Bartholomew is patriarch of Constantinople, not Jerusalem. Therefor he has no authority to invite anyone to Palestine.

IIRC EP Athenagoras wanted to have the "reconciliation" in Palestine with Pope Paul VI of Rome, but Patriarch Benedict of Jerusalem would have none of it, and so it had to be done in the Phanar.

The Patriarchal web site says "His All-Holiness met in private with Pope Francis on Wednesday, March 20, 2013, where he invited the Pope to commemorate and celebrate the 50th anniversary of the restoration of relations between the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches, which occurred in Jerusalem between Patriarch Athenagoras and Pope Paul VI."

Good question! I have always found the Patriarch's formal statements to be full of archaic and anachronistic phrasings which probably makes translation difficult and often leading to absurd paraphrasing in the west or by those with their own agenda. He could use a new ghostwriter!

The problem with what you are saying is that Constantinople has been trying to redefine what her position is. I think that Isa can shed more light into this, but my impression is that Moscow has pushed back hard against Constantinople's attempts to make herself not just the First among Equals but the head of all Orthodox. Ergo, I think that HOH was merely repeating current policy and not using "archaic and anachronistic phrasing."

In this case however, I don't see the phrase in question as being either "archaic or anachronistic" or supportive of the point of view shared by you and Isa. In the context of his address in Rome he clearly was just extending the greetings of the Orthodox to the new Pope. The "ecumenical patriarchate" is clearly a reference to his Church and the reference to "worldwide Orthodoxy" simply refers to the rest of the canonical Orthodox Churches.

The problem with what you are saying is that Constantinople has been trying to redefine what her position is. I think that Isa can shed more light into this, but my impression is that Moscow has pushed back hard against Constantinople's attempts to make herself not just the First among Equals but the head of all Orthodox. Ergo, I think that HOH was merely repeating current policy and not using "archaic and anachronistic phrasing."

I also do not see this. Isa is an excellent debater and spinmeister that is worthy of my attention and admiration, but I would not consider him a reliable source of light. Your bias is also evident.

My bias is that I think HAH Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew has been a good representative of the Orthodox Church and I believe many more people are aware of the Orthodox Church because of him.

EP Bartholomew is patriarch of Constantinople, not Jerusalem. Therefor he has no authority to invite anyone to Palestine.

IIRC EP Athenagoras wanted to have the "reconciliation" in Palestine with Pope Paul VI of Rome, but Patriarch Benedict of Jerusalem would have none of it, and so it had to be done in the Phanar.

The Patriarchal web site says "His All-Holiness met in private with Pope Francis on Wednesday, March 20, 2013, where he invited the Pope to commemorate and celebrate the 50th anniversary of the restoration of relations between the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches, which occurred in Jerusalem between Patriarch Athenagoras and Pope Paul VI."

Good question! I have always found the Patriarch's formal statements to be full of archaic and anachronistic phrasings which probably makes translation difficult and often leading to absurd paraphrasing in the west or by those with their own agenda. He could use a new ghostwriter!

The problem with what you are saying is that Constantinople has been trying to redefine what her position is. I think that Isa can shed more light into this, but my impression is that Moscow has pushed back hard against Constantinople's attempts to make herself not just the First among Equals but the head of all Orthodox. Ergo, I think that HOH was merely repeating current policy and not using "archaic and anachronistic phrasing."

In this case however, I don't see the phrase in question as being either "archaic or anachronistic" or supportive of the point of view shared by you and Isa. In the context of his address in Rome he clearly was just extending the greetings of the Orthodox to the new Pope. The "ecumenical patriarchate" is clearly a reference to his Church and the reference to "worldwide Orthodoxy" simply refers to the rest of the canonical Orthodox Churches.

I think the quotation from Patriarch Bartholomew simply lacks precision, and that instead of speaking about, "the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the worldwide Orthodox Church of Christ," it would have been more accurate for him to speak of, "the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the worldwide Orthodox Churches of Christ."

Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality." St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."St. Theodore Studite

I think the quotation from Patriarch Bartholomew simply lacks precision, and that instead of speaking about, "the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the worldwide Orthodox Church of Christ," it would have been more accurate for him to speak of, "the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the worldwide Orthodox Churches of Christ."

EP Bartholomew is patriarch of Constantinople, not Jerusalem. Therefor he has no authority to invite anyone to Palestine.

IIRC EP Athenagoras wanted to have the "reconciliation" in Palestine with Pope Paul VI of Rome, but Patriarch Benedict of Jerusalem would have none of it, and so it had to be done in the Phanar.

The Patriarchal web site says "His All-Holiness met in private with Pope Francis on Wednesday, March 20, 2013, where he invited the Pope to commemorate and celebrate the 50th anniversary of the restoration of relations between the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches, which occurred in Jerusalem between Patriarch Athenagoras and Pope Paul VI."

Good question! I have always found the Patriarch's formal statements to be full of archaic and anachronistic phrasings which probably makes translation difficult and often leading to absurd paraphrasing in the west or by those with their own agenda. He could use a new ghostwriter!

The problem with what you are saying is that Constantinople has been trying to redefine what her position is. I think that Isa can shed more light into this, but my impression is that Moscow has pushed back hard against Constantinople's attempts to make herself not just the First among Equals but the head of all Orthodox. Ergo, I think that HOH was merely repeating current policy and not using "archaic and anachronistic phrasing."

I haven't really ever seen this, at least from the contemporary Patriarchate.

You missed that speech at Holy Cross a few years back. We have a thread on it somewhere.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

The problem with what you are saying is that Constantinople has been trying to redefine what her position is. I think that Isa can shed more light into this, but my impression is that Moscow has pushed back hard against Constantinople's attempts to make herself not just the First among Equals but the head of all Orthodox. Ergo, I think that HOH was merely repeating current policy and not using "archaic and anachronistic phrasing."

I also do not see this. Isa is an excellent debater and spinmeister that is worthy of my attention and admiration, but I would not consider him a reliable source of light. Your bias is also evident.

My bias is that I think HAH Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew has been a good representative of the Orthodox Church and I believe many more people are aware of the Orthodox Church because of him.

The MP push-back notion always makes me think about Einstein.

Yes, Einstein is the icon of intelligence, isn't he?

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I think the quotation from Patriarch Bartholomew simply lacks precision, and that instead of speaking about, "the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the worldwide Orthodox Church of Christ," it would have been more accurate for him to speak of, "the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the worldwide Orthodox Churches of Christ."

I agree.

Yes. And as for the invitation, have we seen the actual wording? There should be a "on behalf of HB Patriarch Theophilos III of Jerusalem" if permission indeed has been already granted (and no invitation should go out without it).

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I think the quotation from Patriarch Bartholomew simply lacks precision, and that instead of speaking about, "the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the worldwide Orthodox Church of Christ," it would have been more accurate for him to speak of, "the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the worldwide Orthodox Churches of Christ."

I think the quotation from Patriarch Bartholomew simply lacks precision, and that instead of speaking about, "the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the worldwide Orthodox Church of Christ," it would have been more accurate for him to speak of, "the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the worldwide Orthodox Churches of Christ."

Thank you for the link. I have put it in my favorites and will take a look at it shortly.

My own views on ecclesiology have been influenced by two different Orthodox books: (1) The Primacy of Peter: Essays in Ecclesiology and the Early Church, edited by Fr. John Meyendorff, and (2) His Broken Body, written by Fr. Laurent Cleenewerck. Both are helpful texts, although I like the latter text a bit more than the former, but that is because Fr. Cleenewerck's book is a unified doctrinal study rather than a series of essays by different authors.

I think the quotation from Patriarch Bartholomew simply lacks precision, and that instead of speaking about, "the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the worldwide Orthodox Church of Christ," it would have been more accurate for him to speak of, "the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the worldwide Orthodox Churches of Christ."

I think the quotation from Patriarch Bartholomew simply lacks precision, and that instead of speaking about, "the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the worldwide Orthodox Church of Christ," it would have been more accurate for him to speak of, "the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the worldwide Orthodox Churches of Christ."

Thank you for the link. I have put it in my favorites and will take a look at it shortly.

My own views on ecclesiology have been influenced by two different Orthodox books: (1) The Primacy of Peter: Essays in Ecclesiology and the Early Church, edited by Fr. John Meyendorff, and (2) His Broken Body, written by Fr. Laurent Cleenewerck. Both are helpful texts, although I like the latter text a bit more than the former, but that is because Fr. Cleenewerck's book is a unified doctrinal study rather than a series of essays by different authors.

Fr. Laurent promoted two books by the future +John of Pergamon: Bishop Eucharist Church, and Being as Communion. The former is a groundbreaking ecumenical document, and I ordered a copy after having read Fr. Laurent's endorsement. (You can hunt around for it online though)

I think the quotation from Patriarch Bartholomew simply lacks precision, and that instead of speaking about, "the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the worldwide Orthodox Church of Christ," it would have been more accurate for him to speak of, "the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the worldwide Orthodox Churches of Christ."

Mattingly is an acquired taste at best. Frankly you and Isa make "worldwide leader" of Orthodox Christians sound like a good gig. I am sure that the MP views the title that way.

Frankly, to me it is akin to be "chief cat herder."

For those who do not know Mr. Mattingly, here is a short blurb:

"Terry L. Mattingly (born January 31, 1954) is a journalist, author, and professor. As columnist for the Scripps Howard News Service, Mattingly has written "On Religion," a nationally syndicated column, since the summer of 1988. He is also Director of The Washington Journalism Center, a program run by the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities...(He) is a practicing Eastern Orthodox Christian, a member of the Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_Mattingly

Regarding the "chief cat herder" remark, I am disappointed that the seriousness of Constantinople's efforts are being minimized. In any case, here is Point 10 of the Ravenna document that was issued by members of the Joint International Commission for the Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church during the tenth plenary session of the Commission held in Ravenna from 8-14 October 2007:

"10. This conciliar dimension of the Church’s life belongs to its deep-seated nature. That is to say, it is founded in the will of Christ for his people (cfr. Mt 18, 15-20), even if its canonical realizations are of necessity also determined by history and by the social, political and cultural context. Defined thus, the conciliar dimension of the Church is to be found at the three levels of ecclesial communion, the local, the regional and the universal: at the local level of the diocese entrusted to the bishop; at the regional level of a group of local Churches with their bishops who “recognize who is the first amongst themselves” (Apostolic Canon 34); and at the universal level, where those who are first (protoi) in the various regions, together with all the bishops, cooperate in that which concerns the totality of the Church. At this level also, the protoi must recognize who is the first amongst themselves."http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/ch_orthodox_docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20071013_documento-ravenna_en.html

Some of us biased folks are rather not fond of expanding Canon 34 to the "universal" level. I believe that this biased view is indeed shared by folks who are nonetheless practicing, canonical and, dare I say it, sincere Orthodox Christians.

I think the quotation from Patriarch Bartholomew simply lacks precision, and that instead of speaking about, "the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the worldwide Orthodox Church of Christ," it would have been more accurate for him to speak of, "the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the worldwide Orthodox Churches of Christ."

need we look any further than the Phanar's acceptance at the robber council of Ravenna, of the definition of Orthodoxy as "communion with the Ecumenical Patriarch"?

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I think the quotation from Patriarch Bartholomew simply lacks precision, and that instead of speaking about, "the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the worldwide Orthodox Church of Christ," it would have been more accurate for him to speak of, "the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the worldwide Orthodox Churches of Christ."

Mattingly is an acquired taste at best. Frankly you and Isa make "worldwide leader" of Orthodox Christians sound like a good gig. I am sure that the MP views the title that way.

Frankly, to me it is akin to be "chief cat herder."

For those who do not know Mr. Mattingly, here is a short blurb:

"Terry L. Mattingly (born January 31, 1954) is a journalist, author, and professor. As columnist for the Scripps Howard News Service, Mattingly has written "On Religion," a nationally syndicated column, since the summer of 1988. He is also Director of The Washington Journalism Center, a program run by the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities...(He) is a practicing Eastern Orthodox Christian, a member of the Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_Mattingly

Regarding the "chief cat herder" remark, I am disappointed that the seriousness of Constantinople's efforts are being minimized. In any case, here is Point 10 of the Ravenna document that was issued by members of the Joint International Commission for the Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church during the tenth plenary session of the Commission held in Ravenna from 8-14 October 2007:

"10. This conciliar dimension of the Church’s life belongs to its deep-seated nature. That is to say, it is founded in the will of Christ for his people (cfr. Mt 18, 15-20), even if its canonical realizations are of necessity also determined by history and by the social, political and cultural context. Defined thus, the conciliar dimension of the Church is to be found at the three levels of ecclesial communion, the local, the regional and the universal: at the local level of the diocese entrusted to the bishop; at the regional level of a group of local Churches with their bishops who “recognize who is the first amongst themselves” (Apostolic Canon 34); and at the universal level, where those who are first (protoi) in the various regions, together with all the bishops, cooperate in that which concerns the totality of the Church. At this level also, the protoi must recognize who is the first amongst themselves."http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/ch_orthodox_docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20071013_documento-ravenna_en.html

Some of us biased folks are rather not fond of expanding Canon 34 to the "universal" level. I believe that this biased view is indeed shared by folks who are nonetheless practicing, canonical and, dare I say it, sincere Orthodox Christians.

For the record, I am well aware of who Mr. Mattingly is, and nor am I suggesting that those who seem to take a dim view of Patriarch Bartholomew are anything other than "practicing, canonical and, dare I say it, sincere Orthodox Christians."

As to herding cats, I stand by that remark. The general inability of our faith to portray itself to the "outside" world as anything more than a gaggle of jealous, competing clans prevents us from standing together with a firm, unified voice to counter the amoral secularists of the modern world, the Islamists who would destroy our Christian presence and the appeal of the "easy" path to salvation offered by the megachurch types.

The cooperation among us "in that which concerns the totality of the Church" is often difficult to discern outside of our annual Triumph of Orthodoxy events. It seems the good feelings fade quickly indeed.

I think the quotation from Patriarch Bartholomew simply lacks precision, and that instead of speaking about, "the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the worldwide Orthodox Church of Christ," it would have been more accurate for him to speak of, "the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the worldwide Orthodox Churches of Christ."

The problem with what you are saying is that Constantinople has been trying to redefine what her position is. I think that Isa can shed more light into this, but my impression is that Moscow has pushed back hard against Constantinople's attempts to make herself not just the First among Equals but the head of all Orthodox. Ergo, I think that HOH was merely repeating current policy and not using "archaic and anachronistic phrasing."

I also do not see this. Isa is an excellent debater and spinmeister that is worthy of my attention and admiration, but I would not consider him a reliable source of light. Your bias is also evident.

My bias is that I think HAH Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew has been a good representative of the Orthodox Church and I believe many more people are aware of the Orthodox Church because of him.

The MP push-back notion always makes me think about Einstein.

Yes, Einstein is the icon of intelligence, isn't he?

Quite frankly, I do not know if Einstein is more intelligent than you or I am. I was referring to the relativistic aspect of push-back.

Personally, I think if the other Orthodox Churches Hierarchs think that HAH Bartholomew is overbearing (and I do not see the justification for this notion) they should just separate themselves from the EP. At that point they should then be judged by their flock. I just do not understand what you want and why you complain so much.

The problem with what you are saying is that Constantinople has been trying to redefine what her position is. I think that Isa can shed more light into this, but my impression is that Moscow has pushed back hard against Constantinople's attempts to make herself not just the First among Equals but the head of all Orthodox. Ergo, I think that HOH was merely repeating current policy and not using "archaic and anachronistic phrasing."

I also do not see this. Isa is an excellent debater and spinmeister that is worthy of my attention and admiration, but I would not consider him a reliable source of light. Your bias is also evident.

My bias is that I think HAH Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew has been a good representative of the Orthodox Church and I believe many more people are aware of the Orthodox Church because of him.

The MP push-back notion always makes me think about Einstein.

Yes, Einstein is the icon of intelligence, isn't he?

Quite frankly, I do not know if Einstein is more intelligent than you or I am.

Personally, I think if the other Orthodox Churches Hierarchs think that HAH Bartholomew is overbearing (and I do not see the justification for this notion) they should just separate themselves from the EP.

Some have done just that. Others, not being in his jurisdiction, are spared the need. They just need to beat back the Phanar's attempts to extend his jurisdiction over them.

At that point they should then be judged by their flock. I just do not understand what you want and why you complain so much.

Well, if one isn't willing to understand, then what can one do?

As for what I want: the Phanar repent of its covetousness of the Vatican's ecclesiology, and Moscow repent of trying to emulate New Rome.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I think the quotation from Patriarch Bartholomew simply lacks precision, and that instead of speaking about, "the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the worldwide Orthodox Church of Christ," it would have been more accurate for him to speak of, "the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the worldwide Orthodox Churches of Christ."

need we look any further than the Phanar's acceptance at the robber council of Ravenna, of the definition of Orthodoxy as "communion with the Ecumenical Patriarch"?

I thought that was fiction...or are you just being sarcastic?

no, somewhere here we threshed that out, Father, when the robber council of Ravenna was convened.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Personally, I think if the other Orthodox Churches Hierarchs think that HAH Bartholomew is overbearing (and I do not see the justification for this notion) they should just separate themselves from the EP.

Some have done just that. Others, not being in his jurisdiction, are spared the need. They just need to beat back the Phanar's attempts to extend his jurisdiction over them.

At that point they should then be judged by their flock. I just do not understand what you want and why you complain so much.

Well, if one isn't willing to understand, then what can one do?

My understanding is that what is being portrayed here is a soap opera. I learned as a child the best way to survive a soap opera is to tune it out rather than start banging my head on a wall (although this works as well).

One thousand years worth of painful experience provides the entire Orthodox world with the immunization necessary to protect us against any Papist ambitions of either the New and/or the Third Romes.

For those interested in a scholarly article detailing the historical context of the Ecumenical Patriarchate' s contemporary understanding of its role as "primus" through the projection of "soft power" this article by Prodronos Yannas , professor of international and foreign relations at the Technical Education Institution of Western Macedonia, Greece is worth the time to read.

The entire paper, and I suggest all of it be read, can be downloaded as a pdf file.

Rather than the negative views used by the polemicists who cry that the sky is falling or that the EP fashions himself as an "eastern Pope" with a Vatican-like Phanar city-state, the Professor spends a good amount of time dealing with the implications of the break up of the Ottoman Empire, World War One, Lausanne and the latter 20th century role undertaken by the Patriarchate.

Are there instances of overreaching by the current Patriarch or the modern institution? Probably, but the reality of the agenda does not merit the vitriol expressed by some towards him and his institution from my point of view.

Are there instances of overreaching by the current Patriarch or the modern institution? Probably, but the reality of the agenda does not merit the vitriol expressed by some towards him and his institution from my point of view.

The problem is that we do not really know what the agenda is. And, while vitriol is something that none of us should use in any case, I do believe that some folks are painting with the broad brush of vitriol all those who have questions, who worry, and who are opposed this agenda or to "instances of overreaching by the current Patriarch or the modern institution." Here are some worrisome indicators.

Summary of an article by Archbishop Paul of Finlandhttp://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles5/PatAlexisCanon28.php"In our first issue of August 1980, Sourozh published a lengthy article by Archbishop Paul of Finland entitled 'Suggestions for Solutions to the Problem of the Orthodox Diaspora' (reprinted in Sourozh, No. 91, February 2003, pp. 3-19). In it the primate of the Orthodox Church of Finland reviewed the various submissions made by four regional autocephalous Churches to the Preparatory Commission for the Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church which has been in the planning stage for some forty years. In his conclusions Archbishop Paul strongly urged the Patriarchate of Constantinople to relinquish the theory of the supremacy of the Ecumenical Patriarchate over the whole diaspora and to reject any talk of 'barbarian areas' as an anachronism." (My emphasis)

Letter of Patriarch Alexis II to Patriarch Bartholomewhttp://archive.ocl.org/?id=17679"the statement by Your Holiness that as a result of Canon 28 of Chalcedon 'Western Europe and all the lands recently discovered in America and Australia belong to the area of responsibility of the Ecumenical Patriarch' seems completely fictitious and is without canonical foundation."..."Such is the authentic pan-Orthodox tradition in this matter, and the Very Holy Church of Constantinople always respected it until the moment when Patriarch Meletios IV developed the theory of the subordination of the whole Orthodox diaspora to Constantinople. It is precisely this theory, which is clearly non-canonical, that is quite obviously 'hostile to the spirit of the Orthodox Church, to Orthodoxy unity, and to canonical order'. It is itself, in fact, the _expression of 'an expansionist tendency that is without canonical foundation and is unacceptable on an ecciesiological level'. By claiming a universal spiritual power, it does not correspond to the Orthodox canonical tradition or to the teaching of the Holy Fathers of the Church, and represents a direct challenge to Orthodox unity. In fact, there is no reason to agree with Your contention that the whole of the Orthodox diaspora does not finds itself under the spiritual jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Constantinople solely because Constantinople 'tolerates this situation temporarily and for reasons of "economy".' This last _expression has particularly roused our incomprehension and disquiet, since it seems to point to an intention on the part of the Church of Constantinople to continue in the future to pursue a unilateral policy of expansion that is foreign to a spirit of brotherly love and conciliarity."

I am open to a more generous interpretation of the current stance of the Patriarch of Constantinople, which is more than "move along, there is nothing to see here" or "he must have meant something else; why are you so suspicious?"

At that point they should then be judged by their flock. I just do not understand what you want and why you complain so much.

Well, if one isn't willing to understand, then what can one do?

(emphasis added)

It takes a little getting used to.

That's the point: not to get used to it, but remove the source of complaint.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Are there instances of overreaching by the current Patriarch or the modern institution? Probably, but the reality of the agenda does not merit the vitriol expressed by some towards him and his institution from my point of view.

The problem is that we do not really know what the agenda is. And, while vitriol is something that none of us should use in any case, I do believe that some folks are painting with the broad brush of vitriol all those who have questions, who worry, and who are opposed this agenda or to "instances of overreaching by the current Patriarch or the modern institution." Here are some worrisome indicators.

Summary of an article by Archbishop Paul of Finlandhttp://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles5/PatAlexisCanon28.php"In our first issue of August 1980, Sourozh published a lengthy article by Archbishop Paul of Finland entitled 'Suggestions for Solutions to the Problem of the Orthodox Diaspora' (reprinted in Sourozh, No. 91, February 2003, pp. 3-19). In it the primate of the Orthodox Church of Finland reviewed the various submissions made by four regional autocephalous Churches to the Preparatory Commission for the Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church which has been in the planning stage for some forty years. In his conclusions Archbishop Paul strongly urged the Patriarchate of Constantinople to relinquish the theory of the supremacy of the Ecumenical Patriarchate over the whole diaspora and to reject any talk of 'barbarian areas' as an anachronism." (My emphasis)

Letter of Patriarch Alexis II to Patriarch Bartholomewhttp://archive.ocl.org/?id=17679"the statement by Your Holiness that as a result of Canon 28 of Chalcedon 'Western Europe and all the lands recently discovered in America and Australia belong to the area of responsibility of the Ecumenical Patriarch' seems completely fictitious and is without canonical foundation."..."Such is the authentic pan-Orthodox tradition in this matter, and the Very Holy Church of Constantinople always respected it until the moment when Patriarch Meletios IV developed the theory of the subordination of the whole Orthodox diaspora to Constantinople. It is precisely this theory, which is clearly non-canonical, that is quite obviously 'hostile to the spirit of the Orthodox Church, to Orthodoxy unity, and to canonical order'. It is itself, in fact, the _expression of 'an expansionist tendency that is without canonical foundation and is unacceptable on an ecciesiological level'. By claiming a universal spiritual power, it does not correspond to the Orthodox canonical tradition or to the teaching of the Holy Fathers of the Church, and represents a direct challenge to Orthodox unity. In fact, there is no reason to agree with Your contention that the whole of the Orthodox diaspora does not finds itself under the spiritual jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Constantinople solely because Constantinople 'tolerates this situation temporarily and for reasons of "economy".' This last _expression has particularly roused our incomprehension and disquiet, since it seems to point to an intention on the part of the Church of Constantinople to continue in the future to pursue a unilateral policy of expansion that is foreign to a spirit of brotherly love and conciliarity."

I am open to a more generous interpretation of the current stance of the Patriarch of Constantinople, which is more than "move along, there is nothing to see here" or "he must have meant something else; why are you so suspicious?"

What we really have here are two "elephants in the room" and a whole lot of posturing from all sides. The elephants being: first in the 1970's with the creation of the OCA and the Tomos, and second in the 1990's following the collapse of the USSR and the subsequent devolution of the Ukrainian "problems." (I will beat Isa to the punch and mention Estonia but part of me suspects that play was more of an intentional slap in the face at then Metropolitan and now Patriarch Kyrill.)

This whole topic reeks of byzantine intrigue and gamesmanship as reasons of economics and nationalism compelled Constantinople to seek to protect its interests among the Hellenes in the diaspora and for Moscow to maintain her influence within the borders of the former Tsarist Empire, most particularly in Ukraine.The Churches have to resolve these lingering issues which arose with the rise of nationalism and immigration in the 19th century and the collapse of empires (Ottoman, Russian, British and finally Soviet) in the 20th century.

The uneasy status quo which prevailed over four centuries post-Florence and the end of the Eastern Empire was shattered by the events of the past century and a half and a new one has yet to fully evolve. We Orthodox loath change of any type and the radical changes unleashed in the world following in the path of the Industrial and the Information Revolutions have presented the Churches with a tsunami of change with which to contend. Missteps and over-reaching are inevitable along the way.

To my mind this debate is why the Great Council is a necessity. In the end the influence of Moscow should predominate based on sheer size and wealth but Moscow has always been its own worst enemy. God indeed works in mysterious ways!

One thousand years worth of painful experience provides the entire Orthodox world with the immunization necessary to protect us against any Papist ambitions of either the New and/or the Third Romes.

And I am ambitious. Or did you mean to write that with a lower-case "p"?

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?"No one is paying attention to your post reports"Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.

why did no one say this yet!? aiaiai! (or did i miss it?) I wonder if new thread should be made as to his comments about him believing reunion is very possible in the future (though this is not really news from him... er, or should I say His ALL HOLINESS?) sorry i do not know how to adress these things

also,

PATRIARCH BARTHOLOMEW INVITES POPE FRANCIS TO PHANAR

Quote

“The pope said that he would like to come to Turkey. Our president has to invite him and I am sure that he would do this,” Bartholomew said.

At that point they should then be judged by their flock. I just do not understand what you want and why you complain so much.

Well, if one isn't willing to understand, then what can one do?

(emphasis added)

It takes a little getting used to.

That's the point: not to get used to it, but remove the source of complaint.

Well, I'd say the problem with your logic is that the existence of many complaints doesn't necessarily mean that many complaints are justified.

where I see smoke, I put out the fire.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth